Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.
In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992.
The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.
Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases. Critics say the industry is trying to establish a higher price base before Congress passes legislation that tries to curb drug spending in coming years.
“When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run-up in price increases,” says Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota. He has analyzed drug pricing for AARP, the advocacy group for seniors that supports the House health care legislation that the drug industry opposes.
A Harvard health economist, Joseph P. Newhouse, said he found a similar pattern of unusual price increases after Congress added drug benefits to Medicare a few years ago, giving tens of millions of older Americans federally subsidized drug insurance. Just as the program was taking effect in 2006, the drug industry raised prices by the widest margin in a half-dozen years.
“They try to maximize their profits,” Mr. Newhouse said.
But drug companies say they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years.
“Price adjustments for our products have no connection to health care reform,” said Ron Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, which raised its prices about 8.9 percent in the last year, according to a stock analyst’s report.
This year’s increases mean the average annual cost for a brand-name prescription drug that is taken daily would be more than $2,000 — $200 higher than last year, Professor Schondelmeyer said.
And this means that the cost of many popular drugs has risen even faster. Merck, for example, now sells daily 10-milligram pills of Singulair, the blockbuster asthma drug, at a wholesale price of $1,330 a year — $147 more than last year. Singulair is now selling at retail, on drugstore.com, for nearly $1,478 a year.
Read the rest of the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/business/16drugprices.html
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
On this day in 1991: 1st TV condom ad aired (FOX- TV)
| Start: | Nov 17, '09 |
| Location: | U.S.A. |
The award-winning police drama CAGNEY & LACEY/CBS/1982-88 was the first show to ever incorporate a condom scene. During one episode, when Detective Mary Beth Lacey (Tyne Daly) young son Harvey Jr. (Tony La Torre) learns her son is going on his first date, she opened a drawer, pulled out a condom, and gave it to her son.
In a later episode, Mary Beth's partner Christine Cagney (Sharon Gless) reunited with her boyfriend but warns him that she will not have sex unless he uses a condom.
In January 1987, San Francisco station KRON-TV becomes the first major market TV station in the U.S. to air a condom commercial.
On a February, 1987 episode entitled "Bad Timing" on the sitcom THE HOGAN FAMILY/NBC/CBS/1986-90 the word "condom" was used for the first time in a sitcom script.
In the summer of 1989 four San Antonio TV stations ran six weeks of trial commercials featuring an oral contraceptive manufactured by a Texas Company called Lexis Pharmaceuticals. John Bryer, Chief Executive of Lexis said in a TV Guide interview "It was the first time ever, anywhere, that an oral contraceptive was advertised on television."
During the 11/13/91 installment of THE TONIGHT SHOW host Johnny Carson remarked in his opening monologue that the FOX Network announced they would broadcast condom commercials in the near future. Carson questioned their decision wondering if it was "wise to advertise something that could eliminate your next generation of viewers."
In 2005, the WB and NBC networks made history by agreeing to air condom commercial during prime time viewing hours.
And to think we have Rupert Murdoch and Fox to thank!
U.S. Army tells young mother to put her child in foster care
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbwXU5GGu5ZhF8SdvhXS1em7u1tgD9C0V6NO0
An Army cook and single mom may face criminal charges after she skipped her deployment flight to Afghanistan because, she said, no one was available to care for her infant son while she was overseas.
Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders because the only family she had to care for her 10-month-old son — her mother — was overwhelmed by the task, already caring for three other relatives with health problems.
Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.
"For her it was like, 'I couldn't abandon my child,'" Sussman said. "She was really afraid of what would happen, that if she showed up they would send her to Afghanistan anyway and put her son with child protective services."
Hutchinson, who is from Oakland, Calif., remained confined Monday to the boundaries of Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, 10 days after military police arrested her for skipping her unit's flight. No charges have been filed, but a spokesman for the Army post said commanders were investigating.
As a single parent, what would you have done?
An Army cook and single mom may face criminal charges after she skipped her deployment flight to Afghanistan because, she said, no one was available to care for her infant son while she was overseas.Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders because the only family she had to care for her 10-month-old son — her mother — was overwhelmed by the task, already caring for three other relatives with health problems.
Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.
"For her it was like, 'I couldn't abandon my child,'" Sussman said. "She was really afraid of what would happen, that if she showed up they would send her to Afghanistan anyway and put her son with child protective services."
Hutchinson, who is from Oakland, Calif., remained confined Monday to the boundaries of Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, 10 days after military police arrested her for skipping her unit's flight. No charges have been filed, but a spokesman for the Army post said commanders were investigating.
As a single parent, what would you have done?
Disagreement Over Goals at U.N. Meeting on Hunger - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/world/17food.html
Can world hunger be eradicated and is it the concern of U.S. citizens?
"A United Nations summit meeting on combating hunger that opened in Rome on Monday underscored the split between rich and poor countries on the issue, with the industrialized nations balking at concrete targets.
Sixty leaders attended the meeting, but apart from Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy there were no leaders from the wealthiest nations. Some of those who attended, including Pope Benedict XVI, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, lashed out at what they called unfair agricultural policies by more developed nations.
In the hard-fought negotiations over a draft declaration from the three-day talks, richer nations succeeded in removing a goal to end world hunger by 2025 and declined to commit to increasing agricultural aid to nearly 20 percent of all international development aid, where it peaked in 1980 before gradually falling..."
Can world hunger be eradicated and is it the concern of U.S. citizens?
"A United Nations summit meeting on combating hunger that opened in Rome on Monday underscored the split between rich and poor countries on the issue, with the industrialized nations balking at concrete targets.
Sixty leaders attended the meeting, but apart from Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy there were no leaders from the wealthiest nations. Some of those who attended, including Pope Benedict XVI, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, lashed out at what they called unfair agricultural policies by more developed nations.
In the hard-fought negotiations over a draft declaration from the three-day talks, richer nations succeeded in removing a goal to end world hunger by 2025 and declined to commit to increasing agricultural aid to nearly 20 percent of all international development aid, where it peaked in 1980 before gradually falling..."
H1N1 vaccine: New warnings, side effects to consider - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/swineflu/story/H1N1-vaccine-New-warnings-side-effects-to-consider/jfABiLjgl0iE3ZO44gJ_Pg.cspx
Is the government leveling with the public in regards to any side effects of the vaccine?
"PHOENIX -- The Centers for Disease Control has issued new warnings you'll want to consider if you or your family is thinking about getting the H1N1 vaccine.
Janey Pearl, spokeswoman for the Arizona Department of Health Services, said they are working with the Centers for Disease Control to track everyone receiving the H1N1 vaccine.
Each Tuesday the CDC distributes a form to be given to each adult and child receiving the vaccine.
The form allows the patient to document if they are experiencing a reaction to the vaccine and explains who the patient should contact to make a report.
The idea is to carefully catalogue any and all side effects that people may be experiencing as the vaccine is being administered.
So far in Arizona out of the tens of thousands of H1N1 vaccines administered Pearl said they have not received any complaints deemed "serious."
Pearl said of the roughly 90,000 vaccines administered to children, side effects were reported in about 30 kids..."
Is the government leveling with the public in regards to any side effects of the vaccine?
"PHOENIX -- The Centers for Disease Control has issued new warnings you'll want to consider if you or your family is thinking about getting the H1N1 vaccine.
Janey Pearl, spokeswoman for the Arizona Department of Health Services, said they are working with the Centers for Disease Control to track everyone receiving the H1N1 vaccine.
Each Tuesday the CDC distributes a form to be given to each adult and child receiving the vaccine.
The form allows the patient to document if they are experiencing a reaction to the vaccine and explains who the patient should contact to make a report.
The idea is to carefully catalogue any and all side effects that people may be experiencing as the vaccine is being administered.
So far in Arizona out of the tens of thousands of H1N1 vaccines administered Pearl said they have not received any complaints deemed "serious."
Pearl said of the roughly 90,000 vaccines administered to children, side effects were reported in about 30 kids..."
Dollar Trades Near 15-Month Low on View Rates to Stay Near Zero - Bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajQ3ngEa9YlI&pos=3
While a weak dollar means it is a good time to refinance your home if you can afford it, it also means that it will be more expensive to repay our loans to foreign countries.
" Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar traded near a 15-month low against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners on speculation Federal Reserve officials will today reiterate the central bank’s pledge to keep interest rates near zero.
The yen strengthened against 10 of its 16 most-traded counterparts as a rally in stocks lost momentum, damping demand for higher-yielding assets. Australia’s currency weakened from near the strongest level in 15 months after minutes from the central bank’s most recent meeting cast doubt on a third- straight increase in key lending rates.
“The dollar will continue to be used as a funding currency amid rising risk appetite,” said Yoh Nihei, trading group manager at Tokai Tokyo Securities Co. in Tokyo. “The mainstream trend remains intact. The Fed will keep low rates for a while.”
The dollar was at $1.4952 per euro as of 1:05 p.m. in Tokyo from $1.4970 yesterday in New York. The yen rose to 133.19 per euro from 133.33. The greenback traded at 89.06 yen from 89.05 yen, after falling to 88.76 yesterday, the lowest since Oct. 9..."
While a weak dollar means it is a good time to refinance your home if you can afford it, it also means that it will be more expensive to repay our loans to foreign countries.
" Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar traded near a 15-month low against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners on speculation Federal Reserve officials will today reiterate the central bank’s pledge to keep interest rates near zero.
The yen strengthened against 10 of its 16 most-traded counterparts as a rally in stocks lost momentum, damping demand for higher-yielding assets. Australia’s currency weakened from near the strongest level in 15 months after minutes from the central bank’s most recent meeting cast doubt on a third- straight increase in key lending rates.
“The dollar will continue to be used as a funding currency amid rising risk appetite,” said Yoh Nihei, trading group manager at Tokai Tokyo Securities Co. in Tokyo. “The mainstream trend remains intact. The Fed will keep low rates for a while.”
The dollar was at $1.4952 per euro as of 1:05 p.m. in Tokyo from $1.4970 yesterday in New York. The yen rose to 133.19 per euro from 133.33. The greenback traded at 89.06 yen from 89.05 yen, after falling to 88.76 yesterday, the lowest since Oct. 9..."
YouTube - New Mammogram Advice
I have lost two sisters to breast cancer and have a third sibling currently battling the disease yet I have to fight with my HMO to get regularly scheduled exams.
Here is an interesting article where various theories are put forth for the reasons of this announcement.
"...Here are some of their concerns.
* Dr Carol Lee, chairwoman of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Commission, said she fears insurers -- both private and public -- will use them to pare back health costs.
"These new recommendations seem to reflect a conscious decision to ration care," Lee said in a statement.
She said since the onset of regular mammogram screening in 1990, the death rate from breast cancer, which had been unchanged for the preceding 50 years, has decreased by 30 percent.
* Dr Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said the influential group will not change recommendations for routine mammograms for women starting at age 40.
But he is worried that women will become so confused by the conflicting recommendations they will stop getting mammograms altogether. "Frankly, from our point of view that would be the worst possible outcome," Lichtenfeld said in a telephone interview.
* Lichtenfeld and other doctors are worried that insurance companies and government insurers will seize on the recommendations as a way to control rising health costs..."
You can read the rest of the article at http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5AF5OS20091116.
Limited Effect Seen in Abortion Clause - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125841816079551393.html
"...This is very much a political issue and a lot less about the substance of how many women will actually be affected," said Phillip Levine, an economist at Wellesley College who supports legal abortion and is the author of "Sex and Consequences: Abortion, Public Policy and the Economics of Fertility..." Is this a political issue or a moral one?
"...This is very much a political issue and a lot less about the substance of how many women will actually be affected," said Phillip Levine, an economist at Wellesley College who supports legal abortion and is the author of "Sex and Consequences: Abortion, Public Policy and the Economics of Fertility..." Is this a political issue or a moral one?
Paterson Assails Obama on Holding 9/11 Trial in New York - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/nyregion/17paterson.html
Is this the right move by the Obama Admionstration or is the Govenor right to say that this will just open up closed wounds?
"Gov. David A. Paterson on Monday criticized the Obama administration’s decision to try five men linked to the Sept. 11 attacks in a civilian court in Manhattan.
His comments made him one of a few Democrats to take that stand and underscored his schism with the White House.
“This is not a decision that I would have made,” the governor said. “New York was very much the epicenter of that attack; over 2,700 lives were lost.”
“It’s very painful,” he added. “We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site, and having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers...”
Is this the right move by the Obama Admionstration or is the Govenor right to say that this will just open up closed wounds?
"Gov. David A. Paterson on Monday criticized the Obama administration’s decision to try five men linked to the Sept. 11 attacks in a civilian court in Manhattan.
His comments made him one of a few Democrats to take that stand and underscored his schism with the White House.
“This is not a decision that I would have made,” the governor said. “New York was very much the epicenter of that attack; over 2,700 lives were lost.”
“It’s very painful,” he added. “We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site, and having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers...”
Sanford Herald - Tears prayers shared at vigil held at site of girl’s discovery
http://sanfordherald.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Tears-+prayers+shared+at+vigil+held+at+site+of+girl%E2%80%99s+discovery%20&id=4501891-Tears-+prayers+shared+at+vigil+held+at+site+of+girl%E2%80%99s+discovery&instance=homefirstleft
The article does not say how this child died. It is refreshing to see how the community showed their concern and worked together.
"SANFORD — More than 200 people gathered Monday night on the lawn of Swann Station Baptist Church to remember 5-year-old Shaniya Davis.
Flowers, cards and stuffed animals were left in Davis’ memory; those in attendance held candles and sang “Amazing Grace,” crying and embracing as they prayed for the girl who’d been missing for a week.
“It’s just heartbreaking,” said Sonja Pokemire of Sanford. “We all have kids. It’s something you don’t imagine happening in your community.”
A body believed to be Davis’ was found Monday afternoon, about 100 feet from Walker Road off NC-87. Police are awaiting positive identification from the victim’s family, but the search for Davis, of Fayetteville, was called off Monday..."
The article does not say how this child died. It is refreshing to see how the community showed their concern and worked together.
"SANFORD — More than 200 people gathered Monday night on the lawn of Swann Station Baptist Church to remember 5-year-old Shaniya Davis.
Flowers, cards and stuffed animals were left in Davis’ memory; those in attendance held candles and sang “Amazing Grace,” crying and embracing as they prayed for the girl who’d been missing for a week.
“It’s just heartbreaking,” said Sonja Pokemire of Sanford. “We all have kids. It’s something you don’t imagine happening in your community.”
A body believed to be Davis’ was found Monday afternoon, about 100 feet from Walker Road off NC-87. Police are awaiting positive identification from the victim’s family, but the search for Davis, of Fayetteville, was called off Monday..."
How Fed missed chance to take tough line on AIG - Nov. 16, 2009
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/16/news/companies/aig_counterparties_sigtarp/
Why isn't the public demanding answers?
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal regulators, in rushing to rescue AIG last year, failed to use their clout to negotiate concessions from business partners of the troubled insurer, a bailout overseer said on Monday.
As a result, $62.1 billion of taxpayer and AIG funds were essentially funneled to 16 banks, which were counterparties to AIG insurance contracts, according to a report by Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the $700 billion bailout.
The amount paid to the 16 banks represented the full-dollar amount of the underlying assets that the counterparties had insured through AIG. The news that the Fed paid 100 cents on the dollar for the assets caused a big stir among..."
Why isn't the public demanding answers?
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal regulators, in rushing to rescue AIG last year, failed to use their clout to negotiate concessions from business partners of the troubled insurer, a bailout overseer said on Monday.
As a result, $62.1 billion of taxpayer and AIG funds were essentially funneled to 16 banks, which were counterparties to AIG insurance contracts, according to a report by Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the $700 billion bailout.
The amount paid to the 16 banks represented the full-dollar amount of the underlying assets that the counterparties had insured through AIG. The news that the Fed paid 100 cents on the dollar for the assets caused a big stir among..."
Genealogy can dovetail with Political Soul
Scratch a genealogist, find a king in the woodpile. I made that up, but it should be an axiom, because kings (as Pres. Clinton and umpteen other presidents and other "king substitutes" have demonstrated) screw around a lot, and there's always some dopey girl who thinks that if she diddles with a powerful man it somehow makes her special.
However, sometimes you get REAL surprises. My daughter and I have done the genealogy thing, and there were lots of surprises there. One that wasn't a surprise was the fact that my folks have been in this country just about forever, at least as honkies go. I won't bore you with the details; let me get on with the surprises...and the not surprises.
We went the DNA route too, when we began to hit a genealogical brick wall usually in the 1600's. There are different DNA sites and different kinds of answers you get on them, and we did only 2 tests, because it's expensive: about $100 a shot.
Here's one:
http://www.dnatesting.com/404.php
We did this and were THRILLED! The test we took goes back only 5 generations, and the results will tell you if you're a mixture (approximately 1% or more of the following): Caucasian,
Native American, sub-Saharan African, and/or Asian. The "not surprises" included me... *gloom* My other origins didn't amount to the obligatory 1%. My husband's, however, were
astounding; when I read them my jaw just dropped, and my daughter almost attacked me, she was so excited and curious. His results are a challenge to all of you who think you're pure this or that. You see, his grandparents, all 4 of them, came from Czechoslovakia, yet he is (approximately) 5% sub-Saharan African, AND (of all things!) approximately 1% Native American. He looks somewhat Asian (Mongol hoards we figured), and he has been mistaken before for a Native American, but how COULD he be? One answer: slave ancestors...unless there is someone here who can suggest an alternative. Mom and/or Dad and/or Grandma and/or Grandpap screwing around would, I'm afraid, be highly unlikely. The family resemblances appear to transfer from generation to generation too consistently. Of course one never knows for sure...
So you see what I'm saying? You may be in for some real surprises if you go the DNA route to establish your ancestry.
Then there is National Geographic's Genographic Project. It will tell you the route that ONE line (mother to grandmother to great-grandmother, etc. or father to grandfather to great-grandfather, etc.) took in the trek out of Africa 60,000 years ago. Fascinating stuff!
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.html
Now I get to tease Jon about having the genetic wherewithal to run for president...
However, sometimes you get REAL surprises. My daughter and I have done the genealogy thing, and there were lots of surprises there. One that wasn't a surprise was the fact that my folks have been in this country just about forever, at least as honkies go. I won't bore you with the details; let me get on with the surprises...and the not surprises.
We went the DNA route too, when we began to hit a genealogical brick wall usually in the 1600's. There are different DNA sites and different kinds of answers you get on them, and we did only 2 tests, because it's expensive: about $100 a shot.
Here's one:
http://www.dnatesting.com/404.php
We did this and were THRILLED! The test we took goes back only 5 generations, and the results will tell you if you're a mixture (approximately 1% or more of the following): Caucasian,
Native American, sub-Saharan African, and/or Asian. The "not surprises" included me... *gloom* My other origins didn't amount to the obligatory 1%. My husband's, however, were
astounding; when I read them my jaw just dropped, and my daughter almost attacked me, she was so excited and curious. His results are a challenge to all of you who think you're pure this or that. You see, his grandparents, all 4 of them, came from Czechoslovakia, yet he is (approximately) 5% sub-Saharan African, AND (of all things!) approximately 1% Native American. He looks somewhat Asian (Mongol hoards we figured), and he has been mistaken before for a Native American, but how COULD he be? One answer: slave ancestors...unless there is someone here who can suggest an alternative. Mom and/or Dad and/or Grandma and/or Grandpap screwing around would, I'm afraid, be highly unlikely. The family resemblances appear to transfer from generation to generation too consistently. Of course one never knows for sure...
So you see what I'm saying? You may be in for some real surprises if you go the DNA route to establish your ancestry.
Then there is National Geographic's Genographic Project. It will tell you the route that ONE line (mother to grandmother to great-grandmother, etc. or father to grandfather to great-grandfather, etc.) took in the trek out of Africa 60,000 years ago. Fascinating stuff!
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.html
Now I get to tease Jon about having the genetic wherewithal to run for president...
Is White Right, Dollar Wise?
- Universal's UK 'Couples Retreat' Poster Brings Cries of Racism by Removing Black Actors
· November 16, 2009
A racially-tinged advertising decision has gone awry for the movie "Couples Retreat."
Marketers of the Vince Vaughn comedy, which stars four couples in a tropical paradise, removed black actors Faizon Love and Kali Hawk from the promotional poster used in the United Kingdom after the U.S. version used all four couples. In response to outrage over the move, a Universal spokesman said the altered poster aimed "to simplify the poster to actors who are most [recognizable] in international markets."
(U.S. Version)
(U.K. Version)
While Love and Hawk aren't generally as well known as the film's other six stars, it's still a questionable motive. As noted in a 2007 New York Times article, American films with black stars typically struggle in the overseas market. According to the article, Will Smith, the undisputed king of the American box office, ranks no better than twelfth when it comes to ticket sales internationally. Simply put, said industry watcher James Ulmer, "The international marketplace is still fairly racist."
However, there's good news for those who believe the removal of Love and Hawk from the UK poster was racist: Universal issued a statement regretting any offense it caused, and the studio has scrapped all plans to use the modified poster in other overseas markets.
More on the movie: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810045875/info
Do you believe this is racism or just good marketing?
Boeing's move to South Carolina cuts 787's costs
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/09/boeings-move-to-south-carolina-cuts-787s-costs-but-risks-labo/
Boeing (BA) is opening a plant in South Carolina to help build its 787 Dreamliner -- the up to 330-passenger aircraft whose scheduled delivery date has been delayed six times. BusinessWeek reports that Boeing is investing $750 million in that plant and expects to pay the workers there $15 an hour, 42% less than its unionized Washington state workers get. With 850 Dreamliner orders worth $110 billion on the books, Boeing can hardly afford more problems with this plane. Is this move by the company short-sighted?
The answer depends on whether Boeing can train those South Carolina workers to do what those in Washington can. Lately, things haven't worked out so well for Boeing in its relationship with those Washington workers. About a year ago, Boeing's 27,000-member machinists union there went on strike for 57 days, which contributed to one of those six 787 delays and cost the company $2 billion.
The Boeing Co. is a huge part of Washington's history. Whether it will be a significant part of the state's future remains to be seen.
Harley Shaiken, a labor expert at the University of California at Berkeley, said Boeing is "sending a message to the union that this is our other alternative" by moving the second assembly line to South Carolina.
He said that Boeing has had disagreements with the machinists union and that they "marred the fact that they have a skilled and capable workforce" in Everett. Experts say it could weaken union support as Boeing is expected to decide in the coming years where to build the next generation of its 777 and 737 aircraft.
That could come as a blow for the Puget Sound area, which depends heavily on the aerospace industry.
Local Man Claims Responsibility For Own Problems
Does this Parody work for you?
Yes
No
Sort of
Yes
4
No
0
Sort of
4
| Local Man Claims Responsibility For Own Problems | |||||
| |||||
The startling revelation has left many in the community troubled by what it may portend for society at large. "It should be illegal to talk like that", said Marge Stumpko, an angered low-wage waitress from Lower Skunkworks, NY. "Aren't we all our brother's keepers? Is that all you're leaving for my tip, turdface?"
Floyd Grabbuck, a community organizer from Chicago, furiously described Mr. Kookish's statement as "un-American and downright traitorous," suggesting that "If that ungrateful rat-bastard doesn't like how we do things in this country, maybe he should move to a place like Russia where the government doesn't care for its subjects and see how he likes it there." 
Eddie Fuppish, a mismarked ballot corrector from Franken, Minnesota, sounded more conciliatory: "The poor man needs help. Anybody that takes responsibility for his own actions is certifiably insane. Just look at all the big businesses selling you stuff for money. Don't tell me you are in control of your own spending or anything else for that matter. You're not. That's why I vote Democratic and make sure other people do the same, even if they didn't mark their ballots that way. It's the right thing to do. People need to be protected." 
Experts, on whom the incompetent depend to explain the complicated world they fail to understand, are unanimous. "It's Reagan's fault," says Professor Wilton Chumpley, a consulting sociologist from the University of Twerp in Belgium. "Remember how in the 1980s that actor-president mislead people into thinking they could spend their own money and run their own lives without expert help? And then you had that crackpot economist Milton Friedman falsely claiming that the government shouldn't be responsible for directing people's existence. It made less sense than the UFO stories, at least for smart people like myself. But, tragically,
some fools took it seriously; it ruined their lives."
Reverend Al Sharpton excoriated Kookish's "arrogant fantasy," calling it "blame the victim" rhetoric from the right and predicting that the incident would set race relations in the US back fifty years, even though Kookish is white. "It don't matter who the victim is, it's who's doing the blaming that makes it wrong," Sharpton said.
Regardless of the troubling short-term fallout from the incident, the long term trends are clear. "We need to make people understand they don't matter," stated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Having become cogs in the huge state machine, they can't be allowed to think independently and control their lives; that's what we're here for." Pelosi stressed the inevitability of new taxes and government programs in order to liberate people from such delusions. "People like Willard Kookish better get this through their thick skulls: it's not their fault, it's society's. And that's why they need President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress to subdue this country in order to fix it."Palin; A Book, and a Running-Mate....
A couple of years back, I saw a film named after the main character - a scrappy teen named "Juno".
She was a sassy, attitude-rich girl who was very much trying to figure out who she was - her 'partner' in a comedy-of-errors bout of unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancy was a clueless young man who kept saying things like "Wizard! Whose idea was it?"
That someone with a copy of Photoshop and too much time on their hands would make the leap from Juno and the character of Paulie Bleeker to Palin and McCain was probably a foregone conclusion.
The other day, Ms. Palin released her book, "Going Rogue". I haven't read the book - this isn't a review; I don't plan on reading it, either.
I finished "See Spot Run" a long-assed time ago.
The comments from Palin's book which have made it into the press since the book's release are true Palin gems. In one, she references a photograph of her husband, Todd, who was shirtless and holding their new baby - "Dang! Divorce Todd? Look at him!"
Palin hasn't failed to entertain us - when asked about potential ethics investigations regarding her spending habits and other 'activities' as governor, she said that there was a big difference between the White House and the state of Alaska - among other things, the 'department of law' would protect her if she won the White House in 2012.
Of course, there's no 'department of law' in the Federal government - there's a 'Justice Department' - and they've not been kind to anyone on either side of the political aisle where ethics are involved. We've also been asked as a nation and a civil-body-politic to conveniently forget that she quit the her last elected office, for no real reason anyone could define (the rumors that she'd resigned just ahead of a nasty ethics probe remain unproven).
Her running mate, John McCain, made some watered-down comments about Palin's book - we're left to consider whether or not he'll read it, or use it for a doorstop.
Palin, for her part, is losing no time doing a book tour. While legions of android teenagers and their Junior League soccermoms alike wait dutifully in line for an autograph and a word or two of advice from their new heroine on becoming the next Michele Bachmann, Palin took time to write a quick post to her Facebook page on the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court: "...Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision.... Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their “clients.” The trial will afford Mohammad the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts...If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I, like most Americans, hope that Mohammad and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang ‘em high."
She went on to write that a 'hung jury' or 'court room technicalities' might prevent 'just punishment'.
Well.
While McCain is probably saying, "Wizard! Whose idea was it?", Palin has just proved (again) what we already knew - that she has no grasp of the Constitution, the legal system, or any of their basic tenets.
Now, think about this one: Half the country seems to want this woman to run for President. They're perfectly willing to elect someone who (1) quit her last elected post for no reason; (2) has no real knowledge of how the country works, and (3) would throw out large parts of the Constitution to suit her personal agenda.
Due process? Throw it out -- replace it with 'hang 'em high'. Is everyone entitled to an adequate defense? Not in Palin's book - in fact; she thinks its a 'horrible decision' to allow Mohammad and any of his co-conspirators any sort of a defense at all - because it would let Mohammad 'grandstand'. Roe? Forget about it - "...Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade..." (Coherent thought, evidently, isn't her forte, either.)
"Pro-life?" Absolutely. "...I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House...."
I'll give Ms. Palin this - she's entertaining. Sometimes, more entertaining than that other 'Juno'.
The real problem, however, is that the lights won't come on after the movie. We won't be able to joke about her snarky comments, and his cluelessness. If she's elected, no matter who she chooses as a running-mate, we'll have to endure - and that won't be funny -- not at all....
“The entire ideology must be scrapped…”
"In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet 'Road to Serfdom,' laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan. How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don't. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped." --columnist Joe Herring
“Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone.”
Marx states in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)
From Why Communism Kills: The Legacy of Karl Marx By Dr. Fred. C. Schwarz
"Throwing history down the memory hole enables the Left to detach itself from past failures, appear forever fresh and new, and perpetuate an ideology that by virtue of natural selection should have perished long ago." ~ Daniel J. Flynn
Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
Humanity is on the verge of entering into the most tumultuous period in our history. The prospects of a global depression, the likes of which have never been seen before; a truly global war, on a scale never before imagined; and societal collapse, for which nations of the world are building totalitarian police states to control populations; are increasing by the day. The major global trend forecasters are sounding the alarms on economic depression, war, a return to fascism and a total reorganization of society. Through crisis, we are seeing the reorganization of the global political economy, and the transformation of capitalism into a totalitarian capitalist world government. Capitalism has never stayed the same through its history; it has always changed and will continue to do so. Its changes are explained and analyzed through political-economic theory, both mainstream theory and critical. The changes are undertaken over years, decades and centuries. The next phase of capitalism is one in which the world moves to a state-controlled economic system, much like
The global political economy itself is being reorganized into a world government body, consisting of one center of global power where the socio-political-economic power of the world is centralized in one institution. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a reality. Nor is this a subject confined to the realm of “internet conspiracy theorists,” but in fact, the concept of world government originates and evolves throughout the history of capitalism and the global political economy. Mainstream and critical political-economic theory has addressed the concept of world government for centuries.
The notion of a world government has such a long history, as the forces driving the world into such a structure intertwine with the history of the modern global political economy itself. The purpose of this report is to examine the history of the global political economy in taking steps toward forming a world government, in both theory and practice.
How did we get here and where are we going?
Why Study Theory?
Within the academic realm of Political Science, specifically the field of Global Political Economy (GPE), it is essential to understand the various theoretical perspectives of political economy so as to understand the actions and directions taken within the global political economy, and how capitalism has been and continues to be reorganized and altered. Theory provides the foundation upon which actors are understandable and actions are undertaken. As the political economist Robert Cox once stated, “Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.” It is important to understand and analyze the theoretical leanings of those making changes in the global political economy, in order to understand the changes being made, specifically the theoretical foundations of a world government. As well as this, it is important to examine critical theory in how it interprets both how and why a world government is being constructed.
I invite you to read it all here.
A Letter to Generational Voters
A generational voter is one who votes for a particular political party simply because perhaps their mother and father voted for that party. Their parents may still vote for that party with no concept of what it actually represents.
Their knowledge of their chosen political party is limited to the irrelevant information and/or misinformation spoon-fed to them through the television. These people are stubborn and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge changes in their political party. Generational voters often make their voting decision based on what they feel is true regardless of information presented to them to the contrary. They are fans of traditional main-stream-media which is the only source of “news” information they ingest. Many simply don’t ever seek alternate sources and in some cases, they may not even know they exist. If they don’t see it on the evening news – they either don’t believe it or can’t comprehend it.
People are free to be stubborn but, if enough stubborn people are voting, a nation may suffer for their stubbornness.
You can be different and you must be for it is vital for a voting populace to be thoroughly informed and engaged when deciding who is elected to fulfill the role of the leader of a free republic. You can become wise to the truth of your political party or more importantly, to the character and ideological bent of the representatives of either or both political parties. There are good and just liberty-loving democrats as there are good and just liberty-loving republicans. There are greedy, power hungry democrats as there are greedy, power hungry republicans.
Americans – generational voters in particular have become complacent in their duty of protecting liberty. And as anyone who has ever worked knows well, tyranny is only a new director (or dictator) away. It is the same with national leadership. While you may not be able to choose your director at work, you do choose your national leadership – Nazi (National Socialist) Germany choose theirs.
Without wisdom one cannot detect errors in a current ideological worldview no matter how altruistic that worldview may seem. And wisdom cannot be gleaned through stubbornness. The ability to detect errors should enable the adjustment of ones perspective to be more aligned with reality and more importantly what contributes to liberty rather than detracts from it. But one cannot acknowledge these errors unless they have eyes open to factual information and historical precedence to identify them.
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel…” ~ George Orwell, 1984
I am not upper class elite nor am I even middle class bourgeois. I am a part of the common, low income, working class proletariat. The difference with me and those proletariat like me is that I do not covet my neighbors possessions, healthcare or wealth and this is not to imply that all others who are not like me do. The “social justice” seeking followers of the leftist community organizing agitators covet. I do not identify my happiness with wealth – they do. Most importantly I am continuously aware of the fact that it is my responsibility and nobody else’s to pursue my own happiness as I define it. It is also my responsibility to provide for myself and my family if I choose to have a family either by mistake or intent. Because ultimately, if you have “unplanned” children, you chose to have those children by choosing to have sex.
Even with its comparatively brief history of slavery (relative to the long and brutal history of slavery in Africa et. al.) and the oppression of blacks, America is known for providing an equal opportunity to succeed (which again depends on ones perception of success). Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, I think, is an agreeable definition of the opportunity to succeed suggested by the Declaration of Independence. If this were untrue, would America be host to so many immigrants?
Could it be reasonable agreed upon that as long as one has an equal opportunity to pursue happiness, however one may define it, and as long as it in accordance with law; one could be considered equal in our society?
“To place a people into a victim group then, pander for their support and their vote on a promise that they will provide them with that which they did not earn encourages those people to exist in a perpetual state of poverty and thereby provides an unending voting base of generational victims.”
While one child may be born to wealth and have access to “superior” schooling, it is up to that child to take advantage of that schooling. Many don’t take advantage of it and fail. Some are cut off from the family wealth and some are allowed to leach from that wealth. Those who hold that wealth are at liberty to make these decisions. It’s not up to you, me or the government.
Another child may be born to poverty and have access to poor schooling. It is up to that child to take advantage of that schooling however substandard it may be. Many take advantage of what they have and are extraordinarily successful. I know of several exceptional individuals in my extended family who have done or are currently doing just this. Others don’t take advantage of it and fail and they don’t have family wealth to fall back upon. This is not your fault, my fault nor the governments fault nor is the fault of their environment as far too many in the same environment succeed for this to be the case.
If a persons parents choose to get in trouble, choose to ignore education and choose to avoid work hard to succeed, the offspring may very well have to struggle to succeed but, they can indeed succeed. The bad choices of another persons parents are not your fault, my fault nor the governments fault nor is the fault of their environment as far too many in the same environment succeed for this to be the case. Only one successful person emerging from poverty is sufficient evidence to contradict the charge that those born to poverty are destined to remain in poverty.
The preceding examples are facts. Because of this, it can soundly be insisted upon that the vast majority of Americans begin with an equal opportunity to succeed. If they don’t succeed, it is not your fault, my fault nor the governments fault nor is the fault of their environment as far too many in the exact same environment succeed for this to be the case. Furthermore, I submit that those who insist that people born to poverty are destined to remain in poverty do so to further their own power-seeking political ambitions. To place a people into a victim group then, pander for their support and their vote on a promise that they will provide them with that which they did not earn encourages those people to exist in a perpetual state of poverty and thereby provides an unending voting base of generational victims.
"The American people must regain the ability to distinguish between wants and needs and must shed the ridiculous notion that government exists to provide either. Our Constitution -- drafted by men well acquainted with the abusive capacities of a centralized government -- limited the roles and responsibilities of the federal government in order to allow the principle of self-government to flourish in the new nation. Government exists to preserve and protect the sphere of civil freedom within which we can work to meet our needs and our wants. Government does not exist to provide them." ~ columnist Ken Connor
If you have ever been caught up in a government system you know that there is no compassion. There is no subjective opinion to consider your individual circumstances. There are only unbending rules and regulations. Welfare breeds dependence on this rigid system. Dependence on someone or something grants them power over the dependant.
Currently there is a war in the West. It is one of the oldest wars in all of history: the war between the haves and the have-nots. However, it is a war which is being orchestrated through a long march through the culture by would-be-dictator political elites. The intent of this war is not altruistic in the sense that it intends to provide for the have-nots. It is intended to divide We the People so as to be conquered and enslaved to those political elites.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers
It is your duty as a voting American to protect our liberties against tyranny. To do otherwise would be to willingly fight against those of us struggling to protect them. It is your duty to use sound judgment to determine which policies detract from individual liberty and vote against them and those who propose them.
If you can not or do not do this through your informed vote – you, your sons and daughters may be forced to do it through bloodshed.
Last thoughts. What are three primary agendas of many current and past administrations in the Western world?
Expanding welfare – breeds dependence and therefore control
Instituting a federal government run healthcare system – breeds dependence and therefore control
Gun bans/restrictions – strips a populace of the ability to defend against tyrannical control
Levin and Beck Take Second and Third in Amazon's 2009 Bestsellers
Have you read any of the books on Amazon's list?
Yes
No
Yes
1
No
2
Levin and Beck Take Second and Third in Amazon's 2009 Bestsellers
Amazon has announced its 2009 best selling books, and Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" and Glenn Beck's "Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government" are number two and three respectively.
This will certainly ruin Chris Matthews' day, as the MSNBCer back in September agonized overthere being "so much right-wing crap on the best seller list these days."
And who can forget Arianna Huffington last Monday wondering if "The New York Times [should] create a separate bestseller list for conservative blockbusters?"
With this in mind, we at NewsBusters hope the following announcement by Amazon brings tears to liberal media members' eyes from sea to shining sea:
Best Books of 2009Customers' Bestsellers: Top 100 BooksEverybody knows what our bestselling book of 2009 was:The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown's long-awaited follow-up to The Da Vinci Code. But the race was closer than you might think: following Brown on our year-ending list are three books from authors with their own radio platforms, political talkers on the right Mark R. Levin and Glenn Beck and comedian-turned-radio-host Steve Harvey, and then the word-of-mouth fiction breakout of the year, Kathryn Stockett's The Help, which has earned over 900 five-star reviews from Amazon customers.
Isn't it interesting that the names of Levin and Beck's books were not included in Amazon's summary along with embedded links to their respective sales pages?
Neither was Steve Harvey's.
I'm sure that was just an oversight on Amazon's part.
Regardless, congratulations Messrs. Levin and Beck.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Is Obama Going Soft on China?
Last month, President Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama when the exiled Tibetan leader came through Washington. It was a strategic move to placate China, where Obama is now on a three-day visit to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao to address economic issues. Such actions have led some to think that Obama is brushing human-rights issues under the rug.
So far on his Tour de Asia, Obama has failed to bring attention to Tibet or Xinjian, two embattled minority regions in China. (Although he did call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese dissident leader under house arrest.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also implied that, at the moment, the economy and climate change are more pressing issues than human rights. A former Bush administration Asia adviser said, "I really hope that on this trip the president not only presses privately but makes it clear publicly his support for the Dalai Lama... It's not just about an important international spiritual leader; it's a measure of how China will treat the weak as it grows more powerful." Obama will meet with the Dalai Lama after he returns from China.
Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111500333.html?hpid=topnews
So far on his Tour de Asia, Obama has failed to bring attention to Tibet or Xinjian, two embattled minority regions in China. (Although he did call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese dissident leader under house arrest.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also implied that, at the moment, the economy and climate change are more pressing issues than human rights. A former Bush administration Asia adviser said, "I really hope that on this trip the president not only presses privately but makes it clear publicly his support for the Dalai Lama... It's not just about an important international spiritual leader; it's a measure of how China will treat the weak as it grows more powerful." Obama will meet with the Dalai Lama after he returns from China.
Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111500333.html?hpid=topnews
The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency
| Rating: | ★★★★★ |
| Category: | Other |
The first major film/TV project to be shot entirely on location in Botswana, 'The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency' is based on the best-selling novels by Alexander McCall Smith and co-written and executive produced by Richard Curtis and the late Anthony Minghella.
Like McCall's novels, the series chronicles the adventures of Precious Ramotswe (Jill Scott), the cheerful, eminently sensible proprietor of The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, located in the Kgale Hill Shopping Center on the outskirts of Gaborone. Aided by her efficient yet high-strung secretary Grace Makutsi (Anika Noni Rose), Precious investigates a variety of cases, helping townspeople solve mysteries in their lives, from missing children to philandering husbands to con-artist scams.
Precious Ramotswe exemplifies the courageous efforts by real-life Africans to improve the quality of their lives while preserving their culture.
Though Precious brings a playful, even innocent, exuberance to her job, the "mysteries" she investigates are quite serious, and include child kidnapping, poverty, organized crime, health crises, spousal abandonment and infidelity — ongoing problems that confront many Africans (and Americans) today.
Lobbyists Win Again In Securing Tax Break For Home Builders
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/business/economy/15gret.html?_r=1
The New York Times's Gretchen Morgenson points out that lobbyists have won another victory that will lead to billions in taxpayer dollars being handed over to firms that helped spur the economic crisis.
The Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009, which President Obama just signed into law, contains "a tax break that lets big companies offset losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against profits booked as far back as 2004," Morgenson reports. (Read the full story here.)
The administration estimates that the tax breaks will be worth some $33 billion, and home builders -- who analysts say were key players in the financial crisis by building and financing too many homes -- stand to benefit enormously.
One of the more shocking elements of Morgenson's piece is just how large a rate of return these home builders got for the money they spent on lobbying for this tax break:
Securing this tax break was a top priority for home builders, lobbying records show. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that through Oct. 26 of this year, home builders paid $6 million to their lobbyists. Last year, the industry spent $8.2 million lobbying...
...Among individual companies, Lennar spent $240,000 lobbying while companies affiliated with Hovnanian Enterprises spent $222,000. Pulte Homes spent $210,000 this year.
That's some return on investment. After spending its $210,000, Pulte will receive $450 million in refunds. And Hovnanian, after spending its $222,000, will get as much as $275 million.
Even as unemployment continues to rise and the Obama administration's foreclosure plan appears to be failing, Congress and the White House are signing off on tax breaks that reward those who are partly responsible for our financial predicament.
The New York Times's Gretchen Morgenson points out that lobbyists have won another victory that will lead to billions in taxpayer dollars being handed over to firms that helped spur the economic crisis.
The Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009, which President Obama just signed into law, contains "a tax break that lets big companies offset losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against profits booked as far back as 2004," Morgenson reports. (Read the full story here.)
The administration estimates that the tax breaks will be worth some $33 billion, and home builders -- who analysts say were key players in the financial crisis by building and financing too many homes -- stand to benefit enormously.
One of the more shocking elements of Morgenson's piece is just how large a rate of return these home builders got for the money they spent on lobbying for this tax break:
Securing this tax break was a top priority for home builders, lobbying records show. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that through Oct. 26 of this year, home builders paid $6 million to their lobbyists. Last year, the industry spent $8.2 million lobbying...
...Among individual companies, Lennar spent $240,000 lobbying while companies affiliated with Hovnanian Enterprises spent $222,000. Pulte Homes spent $210,000 this year.
That's some return on investment. After spending its $210,000, Pulte will receive $450 million in refunds. And Hovnanian, after spending its $222,000, will get as much as $275 million.
Even as unemployment continues to rise and the Obama administration's foreclosure plan appears to be failing, Congress and the White House are signing off on tax breaks that reward those who are partly responsible for our financial predicament.
Executive vice chairman of the Communist Party USA - Obama opens the door for the left wing
Communist Party vice chairman speaks at University of Misssouri
by The Columbia Missourian, 11/13/2009
Excerpted from the Columbia Missourian
by The Columbia Missourian, 11/13/2009
Excerpted from the Columbia Missourian
COLUMBIA — Jarvis Tyner, executive vice chairman of the Communist Party USA, spoke at MU on Thursday and said the election of President Barack Obama opens the door for the left wing, which he feels has allowed itself to be pushed to the sidelines and overcome with progress-impeding cynicism, to mobilize.
"He's only the beginning," Tyner said. "I think he's a transitional president. I think somebody else is going to come in and take it even further." The Communist Party USA.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, American socialist
Liz Cheney jokes about her Dad running for President in 2012
Cheney/Palin 2012?
Palin/Cheney 2010?
* Blank stare *
On this day in 1969: Massacre of civilians at My Lai, South Vietnam by U.S. is 1st reported
| Start: | Nov 16, '09 |
| Location: | My Lai, Vietnam |
But the lines between North and South had always been permeable. There were many North Vietnamese (Vietcong) sympathizers in South Vietnam. It became increasingly difficult for American solidiers to distinguish the Vietnamese they were fighting to protect from those who were the enemy. Vietcong guerrilla warfare in the hot jungle took its toll on American soldiers, who grew increasingly frustrated and angry in a war that seemed unwinnable. Racism also played a part in distancing American soldiers from the horror of war for the Vietnamese. Vietnamese were referred to as slopes, gooks, and slant-eyes.
The My Lai massacre occurred in 1968, during the last stages of the Tet Offensive, the Vietcong’s massive invasion of South Vietnam. By this time, American troops had been in Vietnam since 1963, with victory far from sight. U.S. troops repelled the attack, but at home the Tet Offensive was a political disaster, precipitating Lyndon Johnson’s decision to withdraw from the 1968 presidential election.
On March 16, 1968 the angry and frustrated men of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division entered the Vietnamese village of My Lai. "This is what you've been waiting for -- search and destroy -- and you've got it," said their superior officers. A short time later the killing began.
As the "search and destroy" mission unfolded, it soon degenerated into the massacre of over 300 apparently unarmed civilians including women, children, and the elderly. Calley ordered his men to enter the village firing, though there had been no report of opposing fire. According to eyewitness reports offered after the event, several old men were bayoneted, praying women and children were shot in the back of the head, and at least one girl was raped and then killed. For his part, Calley was said to have rounded up a group of the villagers, ordered them into a ditch, and mowed them down in a fury of machine gun fire.
In 1969, news of My Lai and photographs of the massacre emerged; attempts at a cover-up drove home to Americans the tragedies of fighting in Vietnam.
Why I hated the I HAVE A DREAM speech
HatED? Hell, I still do. There was nothing new in it, at least to me, and I get bored easily. Because of the I HAVE A DREAM speech, I was glad that I wasn't on that March on Washington. Is that surprising coming from a person who has a long and friendly letter from Ms King? Probably. I don't like speeches that haven't made me aware of something I didn't already know...
But there WAS something I didn't already know, because of my own personal habits. When I met someone who demonstrated that s/he was adverse to equality, I just avoided him/her. My husband, Jon, and I addressed those issues politically, not interpersonally. Why wreck one's already meager social life? What I wasn't attuned to was that I wasn't in the majority, and that speech wasn't for me; it was for them. If I'd really thought about it, I would have understood why he felt he had to put it the way he did, but I was too busy shaking off the irritation that I always feel when someone spouts social redundancies.
Meager social life? Well, sure. When one is working one's way through college (and in my husband's case, medical school), one has little opportunity to develop a circle of friends. I'm not even sure either of us even WANTED a circle of friends; as Jon says, "I can get more out of a book; it's a distillation of the best the author has to offer." I'm fussier than that: I want entertainment from acquaintances...new ideas, new approaches, etc. In short, I'm always trying to find someone of whom I can approve and who is invested in issues of equality, or, as my site admits, "Seeking: I prefer sensitive, empathetic people who have a well-developed sense of humor and a no-holds-barred, brutal honesty."
I just got off a Political Soul thread where I apparently managed to offend a number of people, and one challenged me to "write my own blog" as opposed to nitpicking someone else's blog.
It was kind of embarrassing, since I have blogs up the wazoo on other sites, but, shit, O dear, here goes:
The major reason for my general disagreeableness on the White Privilege: I benefit. Do you? blog was that it appeared to be a trick question. If one agreed, one was sailing along with the current. If one said "No," as I would have said, then one left oneself open to interminable invective. So I attacked initial blog, especially in the areas where I believed it was inaccurate.
What if it were actually a sincere question? Would a sincere answer of "no," have laid there unattacked? I still doubt that.
Why "no"? If US society (or any society) were truly equal, I would have gotten what I wanted from others a whole lot quicker. Pardon this repetition (from the "White Privilege" thread): When I was roundly attacked in a large women's group for pointing out that Eldridge Cleaver wasn't exactly the great guy that the other women seemed to think, it was a shock to me. Didn't they read his book? Why did women think E.C. was a great guy? Because he had to be a great guy since he was black? Was that it? This incident taught me something about "trick topics".
Because of our age, mine and Jon's, much of political correctness can be laid on our (or our generation's) doorstep. But we weren't politically correct in our own generation, so why should we try to be PC now? I still hang to truth over PC, and to equality over hierarchy...which is a losing position. Hierarchy will almost always trump equality, because it is a part of our social-animal's genetic inheritance. Equality is an intellectual position in a society that has become urban and crowded. The urban societies are regimented. Equality, however, is much more common among hunter-gatherer societies.
I was real proud of Jon when he offered his medical help free to black citizens of Chicago's West Side in 1968. After all, he already was working his way through med school. There were only 3 (one black, one white, one Jewish) med students willing to do it in all of Chicago, so obviously at the time it wasn't politically correct. Upon that effort a health center was built.
Institutions my generation produced are taken for granted by younger people now. Good for him, not that he ever took any credit for it.
I, on the other hand, was really ashamed when I read (no TV then) about a local Berkeley girl who laid down in front of a troop train to force it to stop delivering young drafted men to partake of the US killing machine in SE Asia. My excuse for not doing the same...actually, I had lots of excuses...was piss poor. As a citizen of the US, it was my DUTY to help stop that "travesty of so-called democracy". I don't even remember if she died or got her legs cut off; it was that long ago.
I'm not going to bore you all with a litany of our personal efforts and failures. But get this: No human is entirely culpable for oppression. We're primates, and erecting hierarchies is what primates do. No one is innocent on the basis of suffering/enduring/etc. There are reprehensible blacks and reprehensible whites and reprehensible beiges. When one group attains a leadership position in whatever hierarchy there is, woe be unto others, be they women (as in the PC case of Eldridge Cleaver), or any other group. Hitler was right: People in groups love having a group to victimize, and they need their own personal group to "be superior".
I'm done with (and I certainly never enjoyed it) holding positions of power. In regard to politics, which, after all, is the handling of power, I look for candidates who have suffered some but who understand that loyalty to equality and to factual correctness is essential.
After all, in regard to factual correctness, who in 1968 had a PC...er...Personal Computer? Now there's no excuse for presenting false information, even though I admit it is accessible over the 'net. You just have to be careful, and it's not all that difficult to do.
But what can I say...Jon really likes the I HAVE A DREAM speech. I don't begrudge Jon. We disagree on many issues.
But there WAS something I didn't already know, because of my own personal habits. When I met someone who demonstrated that s/he was adverse to equality, I just avoided him/her. My husband, Jon, and I addressed those issues politically, not interpersonally. Why wreck one's already meager social life? What I wasn't attuned to was that I wasn't in the majority, and that speech wasn't for me; it was for them. If I'd really thought about it, I would have understood why he felt he had to put it the way he did, but I was too busy shaking off the irritation that I always feel when someone spouts social redundancies.
Meager social life? Well, sure. When one is working one's way through college (and in my husband's case, medical school), one has little opportunity to develop a circle of friends. I'm not even sure either of us even WANTED a circle of friends; as Jon says, "I can get more out of a book; it's a distillation of the best the author has to offer." I'm fussier than that: I want entertainment from acquaintances...new ideas, new approaches, etc. In short, I'm always trying to find someone of whom I can approve and who is invested in issues of equality, or, as my site admits, "Seeking: I prefer sensitive, empathetic people who have a well-developed sense of humor and a no-holds-barred, brutal honesty."
I just got off a Political Soul thread where I apparently managed to offend a number of people, and one challenged me to "write my own blog" as opposed to nitpicking someone else's blog.
It was kind of embarrassing, since I have blogs up the wazoo on other sites, but, shit, O dear, here goes:
The major reason for my general disagreeableness on the White Privilege: I benefit. Do you? blog was that it appeared to be a trick question. If one agreed, one was sailing along with the current. If one said "No," as I would have said, then one left oneself open to interminable invective. So I attacked initial blog, especially in the areas where I believed it was inaccurate.
What if it were actually a sincere question? Would a sincere answer of "no," have laid there unattacked? I still doubt that.
Why "no"? If US society (or any society) were truly equal, I would have gotten what I wanted from others a whole lot quicker. Pardon this repetition (from the "White Privilege" thread): When I was roundly attacked in a large women's group for pointing out that Eldridge Cleaver wasn't exactly the great guy that the other women seemed to think, it was a shock to me. Didn't they read his book? Why did women think E.C. was a great guy? Because he had to be a great guy since he was black? Was that it? This incident taught me something about "trick topics".
Because of our age, mine and Jon's, much of political correctness can be laid on our (or our generation's) doorstep. But we weren't politically correct in our own generation, so why should we try to be PC now? I still hang to truth over PC, and to equality over hierarchy...which is a losing position. Hierarchy will almost always trump equality, because it is a part of our social-animal's genetic inheritance. Equality is an intellectual position in a society that has become urban and crowded. The urban societies are regimented. Equality, however, is much more common among hunter-gatherer societies.
I was real proud of Jon when he offered his medical help free to black citizens of Chicago's West Side in 1968. After all, he already was working his way through med school. There were only 3 (one black, one white, one Jewish) med students willing to do it in all of Chicago, so obviously at the time it wasn't politically correct. Upon that effort a health center was built.
Institutions my generation produced are taken for granted by younger people now. Good for him, not that he ever took any credit for it.
I, on the other hand, was really ashamed when I read (no TV then) about a local Berkeley girl who laid down in front of a troop train to force it to stop delivering young drafted men to partake of the US killing machine in SE Asia. My excuse for not doing the same...actually, I had lots of excuses...was piss poor. As a citizen of the US, it was my DUTY to help stop that "travesty of so-called democracy". I don't even remember if she died or got her legs cut off; it was that long ago.
I'm not going to bore you all with a litany of our personal efforts and failures. But get this: No human is entirely culpable for oppression. We're primates, and erecting hierarchies is what primates do. No one is innocent on the basis of suffering/enduring/etc. There are reprehensible blacks and reprehensible whites and reprehensible beiges. When one group attains a leadership position in whatever hierarchy there is, woe be unto others, be they women (as in the PC case of Eldridge Cleaver), or any other group. Hitler was right: People in groups love having a group to victimize, and they need their own personal group to "be superior".
I'm done with (and I certainly never enjoyed it) holding positions of power. In regard to politics, which, after all, is the handling of power, I look for candidates who have suffered some but who understand that loyalty to equality and to factual correctness is essential.
After all, in regard to factual correctness, who in 1968 had a PC...er...Personal Computer? Now there's no excuse for presenting false information, even though I admit it is accessible over the 'net. You just have to be careful, and it's not all that difficult to do.
But what can I say...Jon really likes the I HAVE A DREAM speech. I don't begrudge Jon. We disagree on many issues.
Terrorist, or just someone who commited a terrible act?
When it comes down to it this is just a question about semantics. Is Major Hassan a terrorist or someone who committed a terrible act?
He is most certainly a traitor, and as he was a member of the military when he murdered his fellow soldiers a court martial is clearly the proper venue for his trial. But I'm fuzzy on the label we stick him with. If he was part of an organized cell, led by others bent on doing harm to the United States I reckon we can call him a terrorist. But if he did this by himself with no particular urging from an organized group is it still terrorism?
I'm content to simply label him a traitor and let the military come to its own conclusion as to what to do with him, but I am very curious to learn what his motivations were. Did he consider what he was doing a legitimate act of war, thus making him a POW in his own mind? Or was this a suicide bombing done "American style" with guns instead of bombs, making him a terrorist in his own mind? Or, did he really not want to go to war and lose control and just start shooting?
Another observation here, much has been made of his statement that "I'm a Muslim first and an American second." I've seen quite a few multiply bloggers proclaim "I'm a Christian first, and an American second" Many would bristle at my equating the two statements, but Major Hassan is little different than Tim McVeigh, who no doubt would have stated that he was a Christian first. One of the founding principles of this country is that there is no religious litmus test. The idea that any of us hold our theology at a point where we think its OK to kill our fellow citizens over differences (sometimes very minor) is mind numbing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)